Noted regarding the current leadership. However, this aircraft was bought what 10 years ago? It's our current leadership that's trying to axe (at least part) of the program (I imagine our current leadership had other priorities when this program came to fruition.). The briefs Ive been to claimed the systems had all been and is still being flight tested (granted they weren't installed in an F35). Are you claiming the technology doesn't exist?.
Our current leadership is having to live with realities that we didn't have 10 years ago. Yes, LM won the contract for the JSF in 2001- but development started in 95and IOC isn't until 2014 (right now) That's almost a 20 year gestation period. That's multiple generations of software and hardware and at least one generation of tactical and strategc doctrine. We will also expect to fly it for 40 years minimum. As a point of reference that would be similar to the F-4, that design began on in 52 entering service in 72 and being flown as the frint line fighter until 2012.
Certainly some of the technology exists but the integration and test of that technology has always been a challenge. Not to mention it's not this technology that I'm concerned about but the next generation.
Zero growth capability? In regards to what? Systems/sensors? The same ones that are growing in fidelity, accuracy and speed, all the while getting smaller and lighter??.
While the boxes are getting small and lighter (in my time in the EA-6B we went from 33,300 lbs empty to 33,000 IIRC) but take a look at fighter aircraft that have served long lives and been able to adapt to new missions, weapons and tactics. I would say the F-4, F-15, F-14, F-16 are all examples and if there is one thing they share it was excess power and airframe space (F-16 may not qualify for space but they just keep hanging stuff on the outside) . In the JSF we have very little extra power and it is very compact. Even if boxes shrunk by 30%, and they won't, it's not like that frees up lots of space.
Pugs, with all due respect, all you've said is some XO RIO couldn't justify 2-seats 16 years ago? F-16s scattered all over Arizona (and probably Harriers too), but how many of either of those are we crashing today?
I'm not arguing the utility of the AV-8, I'm fully aware of its capabilities and limitations.
That XO was a pretty bright guy, a TPS grad and a doctorate in Aerospace Engineering. My point in bringing him up was that he understood not just the engineering side but the requirements and the real world operational environment and while he thought Boeing was building the better jet, he did not believe the Navy had gone down the right road with the core requirments. I can't find any flaws in his argument even now.
Please don't think I'm dumping on the Harrier. The Corp has gotten good service out of it over many years but it's the closest comparision we have to the JSF at this point and you know the limitation far better than I do of the platform.
As usual the service will make it work and the guys who fly it will make it the best weapon possible but I'm glad I'm not one of them.